Australian government implements far-reaching restructure of intelligence agencies

Mike Head

Over the past fortnight, the Liberal-National government has unveiled the most far-reaching revamping of the country’s “security” apparatus since the political convulsions of the 1960s and 1970s.

First, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, surrounded by masked Special Forces commandos, announced expedited measures to call out the military to suppress any outbreaks of “domestic violence.”

Next, he outlined plans for a Home Affairs super-ministry to take command of seven surveillance and enforcement agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Border Force (ABF) and the Immigration and Border Protection Department.

Then, Turnbull announced that a new US-style Office of National Intelligence (ONI), headed by a Director-General of National Intelligence, will be created in the prime minister’s office. The ONI will establish centralised control over all the internal and external spy agencies that constitute the “National Intelligence Community.”

This network already has about 7,000 personnel and an annual budget approaching $2 billion. Most of its key agencies have roughly trebled in size under the cover of the “war on terrorism” since 2001. Now it is to be vastly expanded and handed a range of new powers, in particular to monitor the political activities of Australians both at home and overseas.

By making his series of “security” pronouncements, Turnbull obviously had his government’s own immediate concerns in mind. The increasingly unpopular and divided Liberal-National Coalition government has been hanging by a thread since last July’s “double dissolution” election left it with a bare one seat majority in parliament’s lower house. No government has lasted a full three-year term since 2007 because of widespread opposition to the bipartisan program of austerity, war preparations and boosting the powers of the police, intelligence and military agencies.

The political fears and strategic calculations in ruling circles go far deeper, however. They are driven by the global turmoil and uncertainties produced by the Trump administration, the decline in the hegemony of the United States—to which the fortunes of Australian capitalism have been tied since World War II—and the rise of seething discontent in every country, including Australia, generated by ever-greater social inequality.

Some light was shed on those underlying concerns by the release of an unclassified version of an intelligence review report prepared at Turnbull’s request over the past six months. The government has accepted all the recommendations of the review, which include the establishment of the ONI.

The report was drafted by former intelligence and foreign affairs chiefs Michael L’Estrange and Stephen Merchant, and Sir Iain Lobban, ex-director of Britain’s intelligence control centre, the Government Communications Headquarters. The public version bluntly states that Australia’s “national security environment” is being re-shaped by the ongoing decline in the global influence of the US, intensifying conflicts between the major powers, and the rise of domestic economic and political disaffection.

“The trend in the global balance of wealth and power is favouring China and India,” the report warns. “The Western ascendancy in international institutions and values that characterised the second half of the twentieth century, and the early years of the twenty-first century, is eroding.”

Clearly, the prospect of war is growing. “The geopolitical consequences of economic globalization are creating new centres of power and encouraging new strategic ambitions among many states. There are increasing complexities, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, generated by enhanced economic interdependence and rising geopolitical rivalry.”

Above all, “the global strategic influence of the United States has declined in relative terms and that trajectory is set to continue.”

The report warns that “these profound changes” have “far-reaching implications, not only internationally but also domestically.” Without elaborating, the report says the shifts are “challenging aspects of Australia’s comparative advantages.”

There are potentially dire economic consequences for the Australian corporate elite in any conflict between the US, which remains by far the largest source of investment in Australia, and China, the country’s biggest export market.

Among the “heightened tensions and instabilities,” the report highlights “enhanced nationalism, populism and economic parochialism in many countries” and notes: “This is exacerbating a growing sense of insecurity and alienation.”

These comments have gone unreported in the capitalist media. They expose the fraud of Turnbull’s assertions, echoed throughout the media, that his government’s only concern is to “keep Australians safe” from terrorism and “cyber-attacks.”

Far from protecting the Australian population, those in ruling circles are preoccupied with suppressing widespread opposition to their plans for war and to the deepening attacks on the jobs, wages and social conditions of working class people.

As recommended by the review, the Director-General of National Intelligence will head an office with double the number of analysts in the existing Office of National Assessments, and provide daily briefings to the prime minister. Headed by the director-general, the new ONI will direct and coordinate the activities of an extensive network of agencies.

These include the domestic spy agency ASIO, the overseas spy service, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), the electronic surveillance operation, the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), and the military’s Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO).

Also in the sprawling network are the satellite mapping agency, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation (AGO), the police-linked Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), and the financial tracking agency, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC). In addition, there is the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency, the Australian Cyber Security Centre and the intelligence arms of the Federal Police, Border Force and immigration department.

Significantly, to these will be added a National Intelligence Community Innovation Hub to involve other government officials, corporate chiefs and academics to “address capability needs” and “create new linkages.”

To boost funding across the network, a Joint Capability Fund will be established, pouring an estimated $370 million extra into “shared capabilities” over the next five years.

New powers will be handed to the agencies, including streamlined ministerial authorisations for operations against entire “classes” of Australians. ASIS agents will be armed and trained to use lethal weapons. There will be a “comprehensive review” of all existing legislation to enhance intelligence powers and data-sharing.

Great attention is being paid to camouflaging the “security” buildup because of mounting hostility toward the surveillance agencies, particularly since the false intelligence claims used to invade Iraq in 2003 and the disclosures of WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks revealed some of the atrocities and war crimes being committed by the US and its allies, including Australia. Snowden exposed the electronic spying conducted by the US National Security Agency and its partners on millions of people around the world.

The report notes that “following the WikiLeaks and Snowden unauthorized disclosures and growing interest in the broader community in perceived failures of intelligence,” it was “critically important” to provide public reassurance and “build trust” with the population.

For that purpose, the report recommended slightly expanded roles for two cosmetic oversight mechanisms, describing their contributions to the “intelligence community” as “value adding.” They are the Inspector-General of Intelligence, a small agency of security-vetted officials in the prime minister’s department, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which consists of 11 Liberal-National and Labor MPs handpicked by the prime minister and the opposition leader.

The document noted that “the Reviewers also held discussions with key interlocutors from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.” Together with Australia, these countries are part of the global US-led “Five Eyes” surveillance network.

The establishment of the new over-arching ONI will bring the intelligence services into line with their counterparts in the US and UK, where similar centralised apparatuses have been created during the past 16 years.

Opposition Labor Party leader Bill Shorten has guaranteed bipartisan support for the restructure, having been briefed by Turnbull in advance. Labor has backed, or initiated, every bolstering of the state apparatus for decades.

This is the greatest overhauling of the security apparatus since the late 1970s, following the global political upheavals of 1968 to 1975, which saw the toppling of governments in many countries. In 1978, the Fraser government used the still officially-unsolved detonation of a bomb outside the Sydney Hilton Hotel to declare that the “age of terrorism” had arrived, deploy troops on the streets, establish the AFP and hand immense powers to the intelligence agencies.

Today, the entire state apparatus is being prepared to deal with even more intense social and political disaffection under conditions of deepening social inequality, austerity and an intensifying drive to war.

Terrorist plot allegedly prevented in Australia

James Cogan 

Australian authorities are claiming that the detention of four men on Saturday disrupted a plot to place an “improvised explosive device” on an international flight. Throughout Sunday and into today, airports around the country were plunged into turmoil by ramped-up security and luggage inspection. Heavily-armed police have been deployed at other prominent locations.

Police raids were carried out on five homes—four in Sydney’s working-class southwestern suburbs of Punchbowl, Wiley Park and Lakemba, and one in the inner-city suburb of Surry Hills. In Lakemba, an entire apartment complex was locked down.

The detained men are reported to be a father and son from two related families of Lebanese background. At least one of the families migrated to Australia in the 1970s. Despite no charges being laid, the four have already been named in the media. One man, reportedly aged in his 50s, suffered head injuries during the raids. Another, in his 30s, was hauled away wearing nothing but a towel around his waist.

The raids were initiated after Australian intelligence allegedly received information from an unspecified international counterpart.

Conflicting reports have asserted both that the men were “totally unknown” to police, and that they had come under scrutiny during previous “anti-terror” operations. Since 2014 alone, 31 such police operations have taken place across Australia, resulting in 70 people being charged with various offences under the country’s sweeping terrorism legislation.

Police applied in court on Sunday to invoke one of the draconian special powers that they have been given in the supposed “war on terrorism”—to detain the accused without charges for 24 hours for interrogation. By Sunday night, another court had reportedly extended the detention to seven days.

Police commanders have indicated they expect more people to be detained for questioning—without charges.

The political establishment and mass media is presenting the guilt of the four men as beyond question. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared before a press conference on Sunday morning that there was “plot to bring down a plane.” He asserted the detentions of the men was “an example of the way in which terrorist plots are uncovered and disrupted due to the extraordinary intelligence services we have and their fine cooperation they have with our police and security agencies.”

Rupert Murdoch-owned publications have already labelled the men as “jihadists” and presented them as linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Al Qaeda. Media outlets are alternatively claiming that the plot involved inserting a bomb in a metal meat grinder and trying to bring it onto an aircraft as carry-on luggage, or fabricating a device that would release a “toxic, sulfur-based gas” and kill all on board.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph is now reporting, as further evidence of a plot, that a sticky note was found in a bin upon which someone had written down the flight number of an international flight between Sydney and Jakarta, Indonesia.

In the face of murky and some seemingly fanciful allegations, it is necessary for people to keep a grip on their critical faculties and their adherence to the fundamental democratic principle: innocent until proven guilty.

Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin admitted to journalists yesterday: “We don’t have a great deal of information on the specific attack—the location, the date or time. However, we are investigating information indicating the aviation industry was potentially a target of that attack.”

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has reported only being told by police that “items” had been found in Surry Hills, which “could” have been used to manufacture a bomb. Beyond a conventional kitchen meat grinder and a mincer to make sausages, no such “items” have been identified.

Time and again, both in Australia and internationally, purported terrorist conspiracies have been revealed to have involved a significant degree of state provocation, entrapment and exaggeration.

In one of the most dramatic cases in Australia—a purported plan in 2009 to attack a military barracks in Sydney—an undercover police agent played the critical role in encouraging a group of men to talk about committing such an act. No actual preparations had been made to carry it out.

Similarly, in 2008, a police agent provided Muslim cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika with ammonium nitrate and showed him how to cause it to detonate. Again, there was no actual plan to carry out a terrorist action. Benbrika and six others were nevertheless convicted to lengthy prison terms.

Even earlier, in 2004, a police agent posing as a journalist offered Zeky “Zak” Mallah, a troubled 18-year-old, $5,000 to record a video threatening to carry out a suicide attack. The video provided the evidence he was planning an act of terrorism. A jury eventually refused to convict him on the most serious charges.

The political context in which the alleged terrorist plot has been exposed provides even more reason to submit every claim by the authorities to the most critical scrutiny.

Under conditions of immense hostility toward the establishment over social inequality and falling living standards, the Turnbull government is seeking to shore up support by posturing as a “strongman” on national security, and distract the population with fear-mongering over the danger of terrorism.

In just the past three weeks, Turnbull has flagged or announced a series of draconian policies.

* He has asserted his government will seek to enact legislation that compels internet companies such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook and Google to give Australian agencies the necessary means to decrypt encrypted information they carry.

* His government has announced legislation to revamp the “military call-out” powers, lifting restrictions on the use of the armed forces against civilians.

* On July 18, Turnbull declared the establishment of a new “Home Affairs” super-ministry on the pretext it would assist combat terrorist threats. It will have overall control of the federal police and intelligence forces, the immigration department and “border protection” force.

* He then announced a new US-style Office of National Intelligence, headed by a Director-General of National Intelligence, is being created in the prime minister’s office to take control of an expanded network of internal and external surveillance agencies.

The alleged airline plot is already being used to justify these policies and denounce criticism of them. The Australian, the flagship publication of the Murdoch media, published an opinion piece today entitled “Clear and present danger.” It was authored by Jacinta Carroll, the head of the Counter Terrorism Policy Centre at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Carroll argues the latest incident proves that the inability of the police to read encrypted communications “must stop.” She declares that it demonstrates the need for a “Home Affairs portfolio and reshaping of the national intelligence community.” She suggests that further “legislative development”—that is, even more draconian laws and police powers—may be necessary in the future.

Such assertions underscore that the need for the utmost vigilance in defence of democratic rights has never been greater.

White House shakeup: A further step toward authoritarian rule

Patrick Martin

Friday’s announcement by President Trump removing White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and replacing him with retired Gen. John F. Kelly marks a further stage in the emergence of the military brass as the decisive political power in the Trump administration.

With General Kelly as White House chief of staff, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, an active duty officer, as national security adviser, and retired Gen. James Mattis as secretary of defense, military men hold three of the top four appointed positions in the executive branch.

Press coverage of the White House transition has focused almost entirely on the Twitter antics by Trump and the vulgar ranting by his new communications director, former hedge fund boss Anthony Scaramucci. A sober assessment of the actual political implications of the White House reshuffle reveals, however, that the events of the past week mark a major turning point for the Trump administration and the crisis-ridden US political system as a whole.

Trump fired Priebus, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, whom he chose as chief of staff to act as a conduit to the Republican congressional leadership and the party establishment. He has replaced him with a retired Marine general with no political record and an avowed and well-publicized contempt for civilian oversight of the military—one, moreover, who, as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has overseen the administration’s program of mass arrests and deportations of undocumented immigrants.

The president coupled the removal of Priebus with a public blast against Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, over their failure last week to enact any version of a repeal of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.

Trump responded with a series of tweets saying Senate Republicans “look like fools” and demanding that McConnell trample on minority rights in the Senate and proceed immediately to push through White House proposals for slashing taxes on the wealthy and gutting social programs such as Medicaid.

Trump presents himself more and more as a ruler above the two capitalist political parties, while seeking to surround himself with uniformed audiences. He addressed 40,000 Boy Scouts assembled at a jamboree in West Virginia, then gave a speech Friday to police on Long Island in which he endorsed “rough” treatment for immigrants and others under arrest, touching off chants of “USA, USA” from the assembled cops.

While inciting police violence, Trump made direct appeals to ultra-right bigotry with a tweet calling for the expulsion of transgendered people from the military and new legal steps by the Justice Department directed against the democratic rights of homosexuals.

Added to this is the rancid atmosphere of palace intrigue in the White House. It is widely reported that Trump family members played a key role in the firing of Priebus, with son-in-law Jared Kushner, daughter Ivanka Trump and First Lady Melania Trump all weighing in.

In all of this there is the stench of dictatorship. Trump is pursuing a definite political strategy. He is seeking to carve out for himself, as the representative of the financial oligarchy, a position of power independent of the apparatuses of the establishment political parties and the traditional institutions of bourgeois rule such as Congress, the courts and the so-called mainstream media.

Like all would-be Bonapartist autocrats, he seeks to establish a personalist regime based on the military and police. His use of Twitter is an essential component of this effort. He bypasses the establishment media and makes his appeal directly to the military and police while seeking to whip up national chauvinism and all forms of social and political backwardness. He seeks in this way to establish a base he can mobilize independently of the political parties.

But Trump is not some aberration or accident, an interloper into the otherwise pristine precincts of American democracy. He is the product of decades of uninterrupted war, reaction and decay of political culture within the ruling class and all official institutions, including academia—a process that has been presided over by both big-business parties. This has coincided with the rise of a criminal financial oligarchy and a staggering growth of social inequality to levels incompatible with democratic norms.

The Democratic Party for its part welcomes the appointment of Kelly. Its opposition to Trump continues to be centered on demands for an escalation of the confrontation with Russia. It welcomes any sign that this is being done, such as the White House’s announcement that Trump will sign the bill passed last week with virtual bipartisan unanimity imposing new sanctions on Russia, as well as Iran and North Korea.

It fears no less than the Republicans the growth of social opposition and anticapitalist sentiment in the working class and supports the domination of the military over the political system as insurance against the threat of social revolution.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi praised General Kelly during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, while expressing the hope that he would improve the functioning of the Trump White House. “I will be speaking with him today and look forward to working with him,” she said.

On another Sunday interview program, CNN’s “State of the Union,” Democratic Representative Barbara Lee was grilled for remarking that by putting General Kelly in charge, “President Trump is militarizing the White House and putting our executive branch in the hands of an extremist.” Lee backpedaled from the suggestion that she was antimilitary, declaring, “Let me first say, I have come from a military family… And so I respect and honor the military and recognize the sacrifices that all of our military men and women make as well as General Kelly and his history and his sacrifices.”

Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the same program and did not even make reference to the White House shakeup.

The concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny financial oligarchy, personified by social criminals like Trump and Scaramucci, is completely incompatible with democratic rights. The defense of democratic rights falls to the working class, as a central element in its struggle for the abolition of the profit system and the socialist reorganization of society.

Handling J&K: What is Right and What More Needs To Be Done?

Syed Ata Hasnain

As the Kashmir Valley stabilises just a bit, there is the lurking fear that the next big negative event may not be very far in the future. In such an environment, it may be good to take stock of trends that may contribute to further improvement and be aware of faults that need to be focused upon and rectified. 

The first of the positives is the obvious resilience being displayed by the J&K Police in the face of serious intimidation of its rank and file ever since mid-2016. Kashmiri police personnel have suffered from a strident campaign brought against them with vengeance. From the killing of SHO Achabal and his team of comrades to the lynching of DSP Ayub Pandith, targeting of unarmed traffic policemen and even policemen on leave the J&K Police personnel of the Valley have borne immense pressure both while performing duties and off duty hours. In the face of this intimidation and the sanctioned threats endorsed by the Separatists there were times when some police families had to virtually beg forgiveness from Separatists. 

There is something very correct about the training of J&K policemen and the ethos with which they serve. However, this loyalty should not remain unrecognised. The Army, one of the biggest benefactors of police loyalty and effectiveness, must continue to respect it and strive to work together at different levels. Incidents like the one at Gund police station in Ganderbal district work against the joint effectiveness of the two strongest Indian institutions.

For all these years we have known exactly what role finance and networks play in the sustenance of violence and anti-national activities in Kashmir. Somehow there appeared to be tremendous reluctance to act against these. In fact there was official addition to the coffers of the Separatists through legitimate payments for travel, medical and other assistance. A media house’s sting operation has become the trigger for revelation of details of conduits that make up these networks. In Iraq, the effectiveness of the Islamic State (IS) reduced very largely once the oil finance networks and the money from the looted treasury began to dwindle. The National Investigation Agency's serious investigation is already leading to loss of Separatist effectiveness. Sustained efforts at making financing almost impossible will prevent the supply of military withdrawal, draw away potential stone throwers, compromise the rising strength of vigilantes in rural mosques and force LoC infiltration guides out of business. A possible fifty per cent reduction in overall anti-social activity will be possible over the next few months but sustainability is the key.

Linked to the financial conduits is the issue of trans-LoC trade. In the 10 years of its existence since 2008, there has been little concern towards formalising this trade and taking it to the next level with barter giving way to an institutionalised banking system. J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti’s Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) party had invested much in this initiative but has been unable to convince the Centre to go beyond. As one of the avenues of illegal movement of money, drugs and sim cards, the trade is now under threat and could become a bone of contention between the coalition partners.

The missing link is the diffused, leadership which apparently holds more power than the largely discredited Hurriyat leadership. Now that the latter is under the scanner for a range of anti-social activities, its usefulness to the establishment being questionable, the time is ripe to ascertain and identify the source that sustains the rabble rousing. There is no doubt that the infrastructure for anti-social activity remains the one set up and nourished by the Hurriyat. While identifying the new leadership the Indian security establishment must turn focus on this infrastructure and neutralise it leaving little scope for revival. 

The handling of the Amarnath Yatra tragedy involving the unfortunate death of seven pilgrims in a terror attack should give the existing coalition government more confidence. The after effects being comparatively much lower due to public and political maturity should have a telling psychological effect on the sponsors of proxy war and the public. It motivated the chief minister to send a strong message to her party members that disconnect from the people of South Kashmir, once their bastion, cannot continue on the pretext of the adverse security situation. However, if the chief minister has to walk this talk it will need the support of one organisation which can make all the difference, the Army; it has the deployment, reach, contact with people and the robust ability to secure a grand engagement plan. It cannot be a creeping plan. It just has to be bold with transformational approach. All the talk about not talking will vanish once the government, the politician and security forces are speaking with the people and not the leadership. It is not difficult but needs imagination and a positive mindset.

Lastly, soon the Yatra will end and the special additional forces would have done their job. For the Army, no return to base for these units is strongly recommended. More troops will help in denying the terrorists space and through the next three to four months, will ensure that operations in South Kashmir can be more proactive.

With change of government in Pakistan one should expect more unpredictability. The form in which it will manifest is something for us to ponder.

Jim Ellert MBA Scholarships for Students from Africa, Europe and Asia 2018/2019 – IMD, Switzerland

Application Deadline: 30th September, 2017

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa, Central & Eastern Europe and the South-Eastern Asian Peninsula.

To Be Taken At (Country): IMD Switzerland

About the Award: IMD offers a variety of merit and need-based MBA scholarships. Applicants may apply to several simultaneously, however, only one scholarship can be awarded per candidate. Scholarships are granted subject to nomination by the scholarship selection committee, acceptance into the program and confirmation of your intention to participate in the program by paying the advance deposit

Type: MBA

Eligibility: Interested candidates must have already applied to the full-time IMD MBA program and also demonstrate high quality in the admission application.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: CHF 20,000

Duration of Program: Duration of MBA program

How to Apply: Submit a 500-word essay on: Why I would like to do an MBA at IMD? 

n order to apply please ensure that you:

• Use the IMD MBA Scholarship template (See in Program Webpage Link below) to write your essays
• Complete the MBA Financial aid application form (except for Future Leaders applications) and submit your full application to mbafinance@imd.org

All essays should reflect your personal point of view expressed in your own words if necessary supported by proper citation.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: IMD

CUNY Resilience Journalism Fellowship for Journalists Worldwide 2017. Fully-funded to New York, USA

Application Deadline: 31st August 2017

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate School of Journalism.

About the Award: The program will focus on the science of climate change and resilience — defined as a system’s capacity to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure. Our Fellows won’t just spend the week sitting in a classroom. Fellows will be kayaking in Jamaica Bay, riding bicycles on city streets, and searching across New York for solutions to some of the world’s most difficult environmental problems.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• The Resilience Fellowship is designed for mid-career journalists who have some background reporting on environmental issues as a staff reporter, producer, editor, or freelancer.
•  Applicants should have at least five years of full-time professional experience. In special cases, less experienced applicants who have demonstrated outstanding journalistic achievement will be considered.
• CUNY Resilience Journalism Fellowship is looking for journalists interested in improving both the quality and quantity of their coverage of climate resilience issues. Journalists will need to be active throughout the Fellowship and be willing to take on the challenges we present.
• Applications which fall into either of the following categories will be considered:
  • – Journalists who are employed by a news organization or freelance full-time as writers, producers, editors, photographers, or multimedia reporters.
  • – Journalism innovators whose ideas have potential to alter the journalism landscape in a fundamental way.
• Applications from international journalists who are proficient in speaking and writing English are encouraged.

Number of Awards: 15

Value of Award: The Fellowship grant covers lodging, tuition and reasonable travel costs, along with most meals.

Duration of Program: Oct. 22-27

How to Apply: APPLY FOR THE RESILIENCE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The Rockefeller Foundation.

Dr Sylvia Meek Masters Scholarship for African Students to Study in Nigeria or South Africa 2018

Application Deadlines:

• For University of Nigeria: Sunday 27th August 2017.
• For University of Pretoria: Friday 29th September 2017.

Eligible Countries: African countries. See countries below

To Be Taken At (University): University of Nigeria,  University of Pretoria

About the Award: The Scholarship for Entomology has been set up in the memory of Dr Sylvia Meek, Malaria Consortium’s Global Technical Director whose untimely passing away in 2016 has left a big void in the fight against infectious diseases, and malaria in particular.

Both Malaria Consortium and the Universities of Nigeria anad Pretoria are committed to ensure Sylvia’s values are carried on by the future generation of entomologists in Africa. Sylvia was not only a great scientist but someone with great compassion who was an inspiration to her associates and colleagues.

The scholarship, established in Sylvia’s honour by Malaria Consortium, will empower a new generation of public health entomologists and malaria staff in Africa and Asia. Given the limited number of field-oriented vector biologists, and the challenges African countries face in achieving malaria elimination, this scholarship is a great opportunity to support the next generation of public health entomologists in support of this quest.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

For University of Nigeria:

• Nationals from the following countries can apply: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, the Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
• Applicants need to have successfully completed a Bachelor’s degree
• Applicants should have good knowledge of English (the language of instruction)
• Applicants should demonstrate an interest in, and commitment to, entomology and the control of vector borne diseases.
• Mid-career applications will be considered along with fresh graduates.

For University of Pretoria:

• Nationals from the following countries can apply: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, the Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
• Applicants need to have successfully completed an Honours degree or equivalent in Entomology or a related discipline
• Applicants should have good knowledge of English (the language of instruction)
• Applicants should demonstrate an interest in, and commitment to, entomology and the control of vector borne diseases
• Applicants should be no older than 35 at the time of submission

Number of Awards: 

• For University of Nigeria: 2
• For University of Pretoria: 1

Value of Award: The Dr Sylvia Meek Scholarship for Entomology will cover all tuition fees, a research study allowance, upkeep costs such as accommodation and board, travel allowance, health insurance and stationery costs for the duration of the MSc. degree

Duration of Program: Maximum of 2 years

How to Apply: It is important to go through application steps on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Malaria Consortium

UNAOC Young Peacebuilders in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 2017

Application Deadline: 31st August 2017

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, State of Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen

To Be Taken At (Country): Amman, Jordan

About the Award: Guided by the principle that youth are key actors to achieve peace, UNAOC develops educational programming to enhance the ability of young people and their organizations to foster mutual respect, understanding and long-term positive relationships between peoples of different cultures and religions.

The Young Peacebuilders in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) edition is designed to engage young women and young men from the MENA region in an intercultural dialogue and peacebuilding experience. The aim is to support the growth of networks of young peacebuilders who are equipped with the tools to address stereotypes, prejudice and polarization in order to build more inclusive and peaceful societies in their communities and globally. The programme is implemented in collaboration with the Generations For Peace.

During the programme, participants will:

• Learn about other cultures, faiths and worldviews within and beyond the group to foster intercultural cohesion and collaboration;
• Learn about stereotypes and how to critically analyze them to reduce their prevalence;
• Understand different perspectives in identity-based conflict and gain tools to develop solutions at local, national and regional level and transform conflicts peacefully;
• Develop competences to use different forms of media or expressive arts as a way to create alternative narratives, reduce polarization and promote social inclusion.

Programme components:

• Part 1: online phase (2 months). Participants access the course through an online collaborative platform provided by UNAOC. UNAOC and other trainers facilitate the first few modules of the curriculum, giving an opportunity to participants to get to know each other prior to their first in-person meeting. They also start getting exposed to tools and concepts, engage in discussion and start reflecting on their individual and joint action. Time commitment: 2 to 3 hours per week to complete the modules (some work can be completed offline).
• Part 2: face-to-face workshop (1 week). All participants travel to Amman, Jordan to complete modules and field visits with trainers and facilitators. They also work together on the development of the group final products and their own action plans. Time commitment: one week (5 working days + 3 days for travel, arrival and departure activities).
• Part 3: online follow-up phase (3/4 months). Participants stay connected through the online platform, improve their final products and report on the implementation of their action plans. Each participant must commit to complete three follow up actions in the months following the workshop. This part consolidates the network and follow-up mechanisms, ensuring the members of the group continue to support each other after the end of the programme.
• Part 4: results sharing symposium (1 day). Participants are invited to participate in a symposium during which they share their experience, lessons learned, achievements and recommendations with a broader audience of practitioners, policy makers, media and the general public. They also engage with this audience on topics related to intercultural dialogue, peace and security. Time commitment: 3 days (1 day symposium + 2 days for travel, arrival and departure activities).

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: All requirements must be met in order to be considered eligible):

1. Age: Be 18-25 years of age at the time of applying for the programme and for its total duration (October-December 2016). To be considered eligible, applicants must be born on or between June 1, 1992 and August 31, 1999. No exceptions will be made.
2. Region: Be a citizen of one of the following MENA region countries Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, State of Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
3. Organization: Be active (staff, volunteer, etc.) in a non-government and non-for-profit youth-led organization, network, initiative or movement (led by youth for the benefit of youth) and have the ability to consult with and reach a wider group of young people, audience or network, including at the grassroots and community level.
4. Commitment: demonstrate commitment to diversity and pluralism, nonviolence, peaceful and inclusive societies. The organizations and networks represented should: Adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles and values of the Charter of the United Nations; have internal democratic and transparent processes of leadership, decision-making and consultation; be independent, unaffiliated with any political party.
5. Language: Command of English is sufficient to take part in the online phase and in-person workshop. The applicant understands English very well; possesses intermediate to fluent levels of English, which allow her/him to participate to the conversation and input.
6. Prior experience: the applicant has never taken part in a programme of UNAOC (Summer School, Youth Solidarity Fund, Intercultural Innovation Award, Plural+, PeaceApp, Youth Event at the UNAOC Global Forum, Fellowship Program)
7. Passport: In order to be accepted in this programme, selected applicants must hold an international passport valid until at least November 1, 2018. Failure to provide a copy in due time will result in cancellation of participation.
8. The application is duly completed, submitted by the deadline and contains all supporting documentation, requested as part of the call. Half-complete applications or applications filled in other languages than English will not be reviewed and considered.

Selection Criteria: 

1. Motivation and contribution to the programme: the applicant demonstrates that she/he is highly motivated to complete all portions of the programme and will do their best to contribute.
2. Interest in themes: the applicant shows some experience in issues related to intercultural dialogue, peacebuilding and the UNAOC mandate through examples of initiatives he/she is part of or is demonstrating a great interest to get involved in this set of issues.
3. Experience and potential: The applicant is at the beginning stages of his/her involvement or career in the field of peacebuilding, intercultural dialogue, community work and has specific goals to improve his/her skills and to make contribution to peace.
4. Outreach: The applicant and his/her organization have the capacity and motivation to absorb and disseminate the lessons learned back to their community, organization and to a wider network or audience.
5. Future impact and follow up: the applicant expressed his/her strong commitment to complete the follow-up actions of the programme (completing a personal action plan; making presentations to organization and local schools; producing a media/information piece).

Number of Awards: 20

Value of Award: As an official policy, the organizers of Young Peacebuilders programme do not require payment of any participation fee. All selected youth participants will be provided with

• Round-trip travel (international or domestic flight, economy class) to Amman, Jordan for the face-to-face workshop as well as to the city of the symposium;
• Shared accommodation (double-rooms), with a participant from the same gender, in the city of the workshop and the city of the symposium;
• Meals and coffee breaks during the official duration of the workshops in Amman and the symposium;
• Shuttles or reimbursement of transportation to/from the airport and hotel in Amman and city of the symposium.

Duration and Timeline of Program:

• By September 30, 2017: Selected participants are notified
• November 2017-January 2018: Online phase: Selected participants take part in introductory online modules
• January 2018: Participants travel to Amman, Jordan to take part in one week workshops
• February-April 2018: Final online phase: Participants finalize their work online and commit to conduct three follow up activities in the three months following the workshop
• May 2018: Results-sharing symposium (location to be determined)

How to Apply: If yes to the above questions, apply now for a chance to be selected for a fully funded participation to the UNAOC Young Peacebuilders in MENA programme.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: UNAOC, Generations for Peace.

Entrepreneurs’ Organisation Global Student Entrepreneur Awards (GSEA) for Innovative Student Entrepreneurs 2018

Application Deadlines: Vary according to Regions. Deadlines for competitions in Africa are listed below:

• South Africa: 23rd November 2017
• Nigeria: 30th November 2017
• Zimbabwe: 1st December 2017
• Zambia: 12th January 2018

GSEA Finals: 14th-17th April 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Toronto, Canada

About the Award: If you are crazy enough to run a business between classes, this is the competition for you. The competition is for undergraduate students (pursuing a bachelor’s degree). The competition is first run geographically then globally. Find a region close to you and then apply.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

1. You must be enrolled in a university/college as an undergraduate or graduate* student at the time of application. Full-time enrollment is not required; part-time enrollment is acceptable.
2. You must be the owner, founder or controlling shareholder of your company and principally responsible for its operation. Each company can be represented by only one owner/co-founder.
3. Operation of a for-profit business or social enterprise, for at least six months prior to the application with generated revenue of US$500 or US$1,000 in investment/backing.
4. You should not have been one of the top six finalists from any previous year’s GSEA Global Finals Competition.
5. The age cap for participation is 35 years of age.

*Graduate students are eligible to apply only if they have continually enrolled in a university following their undergraduate degree and not left school to work on their business or to seek other employment. Exceptions can be made for students who have taken up to 12 months’ break before beginning their postgraduate education.

Selection Criteria: Students are scored by a panel of judges and receive numeric scores on the following criteria:

Part 1: Evaluate the Entrepreneur

1. Does the student demonstrate the tenacious spirit needed to succeed as an entrepreneur? Has he/she encountered challenges, overcome them, and learned from mistakes?
2. Is the student effectively integrating the two roles of life – as a student AND a business owner?
3. EO Core Value #1 – Boldly Go – Is the student taking smart risks and evolving to meet changing circumstances?
4. EO Core Value #2 – Thirst for Learning – Is the student seeking out expert advice and wisdom, and proactively growing their own knowledge? Are they naturally curious?
5. EO Core Value #3 – Make a Mark – Is the student innovating, planning for the future and distinguishing him/herself from the field? Is he/she taking a long view rather than just quick wins?
6. EO Core Value #4 – Trust and Respect – Has the student demonstrated an appropriate degree of trust and respect in his/her interactions with the judges? Is he/she showing their true self, demonstrating vulnerability and openness? Would you find him/her trustworthy?
7. EO Core Value #5 – Cool – Does the student have a unique personal identity that he/she brings to the business? Is the business in alignment with his/her identity and values? Do they come across as confident and genuine?

Part 2: Evaluate the Business

1. Has the student demonstrated a knowledge of strong business fundamentals and shown that they are in practice in the business? Has he/she provided information relating to the growth, revenue and profit of the business?
2. Has the student effectively communicated the business and its vision?
3. Does the business show strong potential for future growth?

Number of Awardees: 3 finalists

Value of Awards: Prizes are generally a combination of cash and business services, and will vary by location.

• Access to successful entrepreneurs. Feedback. Mentorship.
• Students will represent their business and country on a worldwide stage in Toronto, Canada
• Refined elevator pitches. Going head to head with other business owners and answering tough questions about their business to our judges helps competitors improve their pitch skills and enhance their ability to communicate the value proposition of their business.
• Additional awards are given at the Global Finals for Social Impact, Innovation, and Lessons from the Edge

How to Apply: 

• Fill out the online application at Apply Now
• After we have received the application, we will review the application in detail.
• If selected to compete, someone from GSEA will contact you to give you further information on the location of the competition and how to prepare.

Visit Awards Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Entrepreneurs’ Organization